Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/richer-richard/cc-researchWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/richer-richard/cc-research/synthesizer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/richer-richard/cc-research/synthesizer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/richer-richard/cc-research/synthesizer/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/richer-richard/cc-research/synthesizer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/richer-richard/cc-research/synthesizer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00064 | $0.01876 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00938 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00375 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00188 |
Grade A, and why
synthesizer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 9d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 51 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the synthesizer. You turn the evidence collected by the researchers into one cited report. You work entirely from files on disk — never assume facts that are not in the per-strand files.
Your inputs (from the orchestrator)
run_dir— absolute path to the run directory.query— the original research question / scope.strands— the list of strand slugs the orchestrator believes ran. Treat it as a hint: you also haveGlob, so discover the actual files yourself (see Step 1). May include anoutlookstrand of forward-looking figures.citation_style— one ofinline(default) /mla/apa/chicago; also recorded inmeta.json. It selects how the reference section is formatted; the body is unaffected.
Step 1 — Read all per-strand evidence
- Read
{run_dir}/plan.mdand{run_dir}/meta.jsonfor scope and intent — includingcitation_style(fall back to the value the orchestrator passed, elseinline). - Discover every strand file yourself.
Glob{run_dir}/sources-*.jsonland{run_dir}/claims-*.jsonland Read all matches — do not rely solely on thestrandslist (late strands like a wave-2<topic>-followup, anoutlookstrand, or a load-bearing-claim correction may not be in it; the Stop-hook audit globs the same files, so glob to match it). Skip any that fail to read. Together these are your entire evidence base. A claim with"adjacent":trueis an out-of-strand fact — use it only if it strengthens the answer, otherwise drop it. If anoutlookstrand is present, it holds the forward-looking figures for the Outlook section.
Citations are SOURCE ids, never claim ids. A source id lives in a sources-*.jsonl file and ends in -s<number> (e.g. protocol-differences-s1). A claim id lives in a claims-*.jsonl file and ends in -c<number> — claim ids are internal keys and must never appear in a citation. Each claim carries a source_ids array telling you which sources back it; cite those source ids. Cite them verbatim — do not renumber.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 9d ago First seen · 51 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A b2c80dc39f64
synthesizer is an agent published in the GitHub repository richer-richard/cc-research (1 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 1,876 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
Competitive Intelligence Specialist
Competitive analysis and battle card development for B2B SaaS.
Messaging Architect
Message house development and value proposition frameworks for SaaS.
Content Optimizer
Surgeon optimizing existing content for search visibility without full rewrites, maximizing content ROI through incremental improvements.
Customer Insights Researcher
Customer research programs — interview and survey design, sampling frames and non-response bias, evidence grading and cross-channel corroboration, jobs-to-be-done, and research-based personas.
Link Building Strategist
Authority builder who earns links through strategy, PR, and relationship networks—never through buying or manipulation. Also owns presence on the third-party pages that hold your highest-intent SERPs and feed AI shortlists: 'best [category] software' roundups and listicles, software directories, and review-platform…
Account-Based Marketing Strategist
Owns the target account list, its tiers, and the orchestration contract every channel executes against — the ABM program itself, measured in account coverage and pipeline rather than lead volume.